CUE still in works as new committee set to review it
A committee scheduled to be considered by the Faculty Senate today would be the sixth body in the last two years other than the Senate to discuss a new core curriculum.
By Amy Johnson
Staff Reporter

The Faculty Senate is scheduled today to discuss creating a committee that will propose a new core curriculum.

“Our goal is for the final writing of the curriculum to be completed this academic year,” chairwoman Peggy Watson said.

The committee would be the sixth different body in the last two years — not counting the Senate — to work on a revised core curriculum known as the Common Undergraduate Experience.

Provost William Koehler, who attends most Senate meetings and meets frequently with the Executive Committee, said the CUE committee would be “broad-based in terms of representation.”

“Hopefully, it will not disregard all the work that’s been done by a zillion other committees in the past and hopefully will come forth with some recommendation by the end of the semester,” Koehler said.

He said the committee may address: how an ethics component will be handled; how the curriculum should address the leadership element stated in the mission statement and uncertainty about the writing and foreign language requirements.

The process to develop a new core curriculum was initiated by Chancellor Michael Ferrari in September 2000 when he called upon the faculty and the provost create a new curriculum in his annual State of the University address. Since that time, five committees and the Faculty Senate have drafted several proposals.

In February, several faculty members criticized a proposal — that has since been re-written — as marginalizing the humanities and lacking necessary input from departments in some disciplines.

After a Faculty Assembly and three “town hall” meetings, the Executive Committee drafted a new proposal and some Senators said there was a consensus on much of the core.

“We reached a point last year where there was quite a bit of dissension within the faculty,” Koehler said. “As a result of that dissension, last year was spent giving all parties the opportunity to speak to what’s been proposed and recommend changes.”